Who's The Biggest Disappointment?

FurZo wrote:The Carter ordeal takes the cake on bad trades for the Warriors. The way I see it, not only would Carter comming to Oaktown strengthen the team and put up high numbers, it also would have enrichend the Warriors Franchise as a whole, therefore increasing the appeal of other players wanting to come to Golden State and increasing championship contendability. In the end, this is basketball and a business. Unfortunately GS concentrated on the business aspect for too long and made some bad decision along the way. The good news is the managment appears to be on track and has the goal of creating a marketable successful team rather than a quick buck. Everything comes in time.

Carter didn't really get people to go to toronto, in fact TMAC was there and wanted to leave... i don't see Carter turning around the franchise, but it would have gotten them some recognition, but who knows.. there were some bigger wastes of drafts, jamison is a solid player, but Vonteego, fuller, Smith.... at least when they didn't get carter, they got some Value in Antawn.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:20 pm

by 32

Well, I dunno what you define as "value", but we went nowhere in the Jamison era. I liked the guy as a player, sure, but saying we got value in Jamison is like saying we got value in Gilbert Arenas... he's a good player, but didn't do much for the team. We still never made the playoffs, but we weren't bad enough to grab the #1 pick in the draft, either.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 pm

by ramg529

migya wrote:Antawn was quite good, not a superstar but almost there!

Warriors have had far worse trades in the last 10 years - Tim Hardaway, letting Hughes go for nothing instead of trading him, Joe Smith.

Some of the draft picks have also been awful!!!!!

Dude, Antwan is nowhere near a superstar...ya, he can put the ball in the basket at times, but have you ever seen someone dribble, pass, and play D so poorly?

I mean, JRich is a crappy passer too but he makes up for it in other areas...

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:27 pm

by 32

I don't think Antawn was as good a player for us as others make him seem. Is he a decent forward? Of course. Do I like him? Hell yeah; the guy was a Warrior for 7 years, of course I like him! He's family now. Was he a franchise player? Not even close.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:25 am

by migya

Jamison may not have been a great allround player but the warriors would have been absolutely awful without him! They would have won well under 20 games! He was their go to guy and was productive as one!

The other trades I mentioned are far worse!

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:16 am

by 32

True, but "go-to-guy" status means nothing. At the moment, Mike Dunleavy would be the go-to guy on the Hornets and he's not that great of a player. Being the best of the worst is nothing to brag about.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:46 pm

by migya

The Warriors were not the WORST!!!!!! and being the go to guy does not mean nothing! You have to put up with the constant pressure and you have to deliver all the time! Jamison showed that he could deliver! There is no comparison between he and dun! At least not yet.

Dun would not be the go to guy in the hornets! JR Smith, Mason and Chris Paul would be ahead of him! and that team is the worst of the worst at the moment

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:27 am

by 32

The Warriors WERE the worst when Jamison was on the team. There were several seasons when their record was worse than the Clippers. They were terrible during that era.

And you're missing the point. I'm saying that ANY player, if put on a team bad enough, could be a go-to guy. Throw Adonal Foyle on a 7th grade girls team; who do you think is gonna be the go-to guy on offense (even if it's just because he's a foot taller than everyone else)? That's all I'm saying. During all those years, Jamison had the most talent out of an otherwise talent-less squad (I can say that now because they are gone). "Dealing with the pressure" or whatever isn't a factor if you're getting the ball 70% of the time on an offense that features Vonteego Cummings, Todd Fuller, Mookie Blaylock, and Clarence Weatherspoon.

All I'm saying is that if you put Antawn on a decent team with better players than him (*cough, Dallas), he'll ride the bench. Simple and easy. When on a Golden State-level team, or a Washington-level team, he'll start. But just because he's a go-to guy doesn't mean he has talent; it just means he's the best out of the group he's playing with. Would you call Donyell Marshall one of the best players in the league because he was our go-to guy for a couple years?

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:53 pm

by TMC

#32 wrote:The Warriors WERE the worst when Jamison was on the team. There were several seasons when their record was worse than the Clippers. They were terrible during that era.

No, the Bulls were the worst, it's not even close.

#32 wrote:And you're missing the point. I'm saying that ANY player, if put on a team bad enough, could be a go-to guy. Throw Adonal Foyle on a 7th grade girls team; who do you think is gonna be the go-to guy on offense (even if it's just because he's a foot taller than everyone else)?

Obviously, one of the girls.

#32 wrote:All I'm saying is that if you put Antawn on a decent team with better players than him (*cough, Dallas), he'll ride the bench. Simple and easy. When on a Golden State-level team, or a Washington-level team, he'll start. But just because he's a go-to guy doesn't mean he has talent; it just means he's the best out of the group he's playing with. Would you call Donyell Marshall one of the best players in the league because he was our go-to guy for a couple years?

Donyell is not close to Antawn, he depends on his shooting to score, while Antawn has more ways to do it.

Both stink defensively.

I see Antawn as a similar player to Shareef. Both are good enough to tease GMs into giving them fat contracts, but they're not real stars...

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:12 pm

by 32

I meant worst in the West... or even worst in their division (thats pretty much what it comes down to when you don't make the playoffs).

And the Shareef analogy is my point exactly! They're decent, they put up decent numbers, but neither can further a team. Washington would have gotten just as far last season with Troy Murphy @ the 4, or Drew Gooden, or Antoine Walker... they didn't have anything special in Jamison; just a forward who puts up numbers for himself. Any team is just as good without him (we sure as hell got better now that he's gone).

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:48 pm

by TMC

#32 wrote:I meant worst in the West... or even worst in their division (thats pretty much what it comes down to when you don't make the playoffs).

Ok, then we agree.

But I don't think Washington would be the same without him. They need someone to put up those numbers, even if he's not a great star. The only problem about Jamison is his contract. He's not a max player.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:22 pm

by 32

No, definately not. He's upper class, no doubt... but he's one of those players that's apart of the supporting cast. He's a Morgan Freeman, not a Denzel Washington.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:43 am

by TMC

Good example. Every team needs a Morgan Freeman to go with its Denzel. The problem is when Freeman tries to play Denzel's role.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:24 am

by migya

Jamison is an above average SF at the very least and this season (again) he is contributing to the Wizards winning.

MY POINT = NO COMPARISON BETWEEN DUN AND JAMISON
Not yet anyway

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:24 am

by 32

My point = you refuse to even let the thought of Dunleavy being a good player enter your mind, so (while I'll listen to you in other aspects of the Warriors game), your opinion about him seems invalid. Dunleavy averaged 13 points 6 boards last season. Very decent forward.